Dave Godfrey's Posts - Atheist Nexus2016-12-10T05:22:19ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440http://api.ning.com:80/files/kZzo8PgK6neQN4AfxW4EG8lio8WXn0XSgqGXhrjLcnz6wFQSa-7LXzOI*ItARRbbgifycjdTrRuWIx0iU2Ci9jHlOgwyAvvH/genericprofilepicture.png?width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blog/feed?user=1fe5j1n752wnd&xn_auth=noDoes God answer prayers?tag:atheistnexus.org,2015-11-19:2182797:BlogPost:26564122015-11-19T07:54:55.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
If you believe he does, consider this:<br />
<br />
We probably still have much to learn about what happened in Paris last Friday night, but there is one thing we can be 100% certain of. Before those bastards started out on their mission, they would have prayed to God. They would have asked for his full support for what they were about to do. They probably prayed while they were spraying bullets into people's bodies.<br />
<br />
Given that they killed more than 100 people, injured hundreds more, caused panic and…
If you believe he does, consider this:<br />
<br />
We probably still have much to learn about what happened in Paris last Friday night, but there is one thing we can be 100% certain of. Before those bastards started out on their mission, they would have prayed to God. They would have asked for his full support for what they were about to do. They probably prayed while they were spraying bullets into people's bodies.<br />
<br />
Given that they killed more than 100 people, injured hundreds more, caused panic and chaos and have achieved incredible press coverage, nobody can argue their mission wasn't successful.<br />
<br />
So, if god does answer prayers, just whose prayers did he answer that night?Adam & Eve found innocent of all crimestag:atheistnexus.org,2015-10-27:2182797:BlogPost:26525922015-10-27T10:19:40.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>In a dramatic turn of events, Adam de Eden and his wife Eve have been found not guilty of being the cause of a ‘curse on all mankind’ and bringing sin into the world by eating a piece of illicit fruit. While neither deny consuming said berry, they claimed in court that the fruit tree's owner had lied to them, and that they were unaware of how dire the consequences of their ‘crime’ would be.</p>
<p>The judge in the case, Lord AG. Gnostic, accepted the de Eden's story, which went as…</p>
<p>In a dramatic turn of events, Adam de Eden and his wife Eve have been found not guilty of being the cause of a ‘curse on all mankind’ and bringing sin into the world by eating a piece of illicit fruit. While neither deny consuming said berry, they claimed in court that the fruit tree's owner had lied to them, and that they were unaware of how dire the consequences of their ‘crime’ would be.</p>
<p>The judge in the case, Lord AG. Gnostic, accepted the de Eden's story, which went as follows.</p>
<p>“When we were created and found ourselves in Eden, our creator, Mr Y.A. Weh, told us we could eat anything in the Garden except from the Tree of Knowledge. He informed us that if we did so, we would be dead by the end of the day. However, we had no knowledge of what a bad thing death might be. How could we? It was the first day we had ever existed, we had been provided with no information of what life was, and certainly knew nothing about the concept of death.</p>
<p>We found ourselves left entirely on our own in this strange garden, and then this serpent started talking to us. He told us that what Mr Weh had told us was not true (though of course, we had no idea then what truth was either) and if we did eat the fruit from the tree, we would not die. The speaking serpent sounded so reasonable, and we were so hungry, we decided to take our chances and eat the fruit anyway.</p>
<p>Then Mr Weh came back from wherever he had been hiding himself, saw that we had eaten some of the fruit, and he was furious. We tried to explain what had happened but he simply would not let us speak. He raged on and on about us becoming ‘as gods’ but did nothing to explain exactly what it was we had done wrong. He ended his rant by magically taking away the serpent’s legs and forcing it to eat dust, by turning me (Adam) into a farmer and making Eve have children. Finally, he evicted us from our home.</p>
<p>We realised the following day that Mr Weh had indeed lied to us for we were still alive. (Note, Mr de Eden is now a healthy 900-years old).</p>
<p>In his summation, the Judge concluded that Mr Weh had acted in a very aggressive and totally unreasonable manner. Furthermore, it was clear that he, and not the de Eden’s, was solely responsible for the creation of death and sin, and simply was simply refusing to accept any blame.</p>
<p>( Mr Weh is subject to another court action next week, where he is being accused of not actually existing. He is not expected to attend court personally.)</p>I am Hamtag:atheistnexus.org,2015-03-05:2182797:BlogPost:25785022015-03-05T15:09:51.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Hi. My name’s Ken Ham and I run a Christian apologetics ministry called Answers in Genesis. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of an infallible God who fathered a son called Jesus. As well as being God’s son, Jesus was also God himself as well as being a holy ghost (in collaboration with God).</p>
<p>Because the Bible is the infallible word of God, the Bible is infallible. So when the Bible suggests that the world is flat (which it does on several occasions), and the secularists…</p>
<p>Hi. My name’s Ken Ham and I run a Christian apologetics ministry called Answers in Genesis. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of an infallible God who fathered a son called Jesus. As well as being God’s son, Jesus was also God himself as well as being a holy ghost (in collaboration with God).</p>
<p>Because the Bible is the infallible word of God, the Bible is infallible. So when the Bible suggests that the world is flat (which it does on several occasions), and the secularists (more about them later) suggest that the world is spherical, the world must be flat because it says so in the Bible. This presents a bit of a conundrum. However this is easily solved: When I live in the real world, it is spherical and when I read the Bible it is flat (just like God says it is).</p>
<p>Now, there are people in this world called Secularists. These Secularists are all atheists because they don’t believe in God. Conveniently, they claim not to believe in any gods (such as the many Hindu gods), but they don’t believe in my God in particular. In fact, they hate my God (and all Christians, too). However, as I’ve told them many, many times, they are not really atheists because the know in the muscular organ that resides in their chest and pumps blood around their bodies that they DO really actually really believe in God. They must do, because everybody believes in God, otherwise he would not be infallible, so how can anybody possibly not believe in God? (Incidentally, the other gods that people like Hindus believe in don’t really exist. I’m happy to go along with this, because clearly the notion that their gods could possibly be real is just silly).</p>
<p>All Secularists, who claim that they don’t believe in Gods, are really religious because they don’t worship God. Instead, they worship other gods such as evolution, millions of years, molecules-to-man evolution, other human beings (mostly other Secularists) and science.</p>
<p>Let me tell you about science. I have a Bachelors degree in Environmental Biology and diploma in Education, so that qualifies me as the world’s leading expert on science. I use this unique knowledge to inform the scientific community that they are not really scientists. You see, they can’t really be scientists because their science contradicts the very real science that is contained in the infallible Bible. (Unless, of course, they do science which does not contradict what it says in the Bible – I’m prepared to accept that they might be real scientists. Especially if they are also Christians).</p>
<p>You see, the problem with secular scientists is that they don’t understand what REAL science is. In fact, there are two types of science: There is Observational Science, which is the real science that produces things like the internet and all that useful stuff. Then there is Historical Science, which isn’t real science because the scientists weren’t there to do the real science at the time. You can’t say what happened in the past if you weren’t there to record and study it when it happened. Now you may say, “but, Ken, you weren’t there either. But I didn’t need to be there, because infallible God was and he wrote it all down in the infallible Bible.</p>
<p>One of the Bible’s most important stories is that of Noah’s Ark. The story is important because it shows what a wonderful, loving and caring god God is when he drowned 99% of all life on Earth, but saved eight people and two or seven of each kind of animal. Noah was told to build a big boat and when the rains came those lucky few were sheltered. The problem is, the secularists, who all believe in the religion of evolution, doubt that this wonderful event actually happened. They raise all sorts of silly objections, such as that millions of animals couldn’t fit on the ark, that it would be impossible for them to survive all cramped together for a whole year, and that there is no evidence for a global flood anyway. But of course, they weren’t there, but our infallible God was and he wrote it all down in the infallible Bible, so the story must be true.</p>
<p>Because the story of Noah and the Flood is such a wonderful example of God’s love and compassion, I am building my own Ark in Kentucky. Although we don’t know what the original ark looked like, because the Bible doesn’t go into too much detail, and although my Ark will never be able to float on water, it will be totally authentic in every detail. The Devil-blighted secularists, however, are strongly opposed to my ark, because they have a deep-seated hatred of God and Christians. They are doing their <strike>damn</strike> very best to stop my ark being built.</p>
<p>(My apologies, I almost said a very rude word then. It is a well known fact that swearing and cussing is an essential secularist trait, and I would never be so immoral).</p>
<p>This brings me on to another problem with secularists: They are all totally immoral, to the point of being foul, depraved, devil-blighted sinners. Although some secularists give the impression that they are moral creatures, because they do not murder, cheat, steal or commit lewd immoral acts on an everyday basis, they cannot be truly moral because they do not believe in the ultimate moral authority: God. When Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit in the Garden of Eden, they unleashed immorality and death upon the world, and secularists are the end result.</p>
<p>Of course, the reason why secularists are so devoid of any moral standards, is because of their belief in the religion of evolution, as well as other anti-Biblical sciences such as astronomy, geology, biology, medicine and astrophysics. These secularists believe that one day, molecules became men, and that humans are actually animals. This, of course, is a ridiculous notion. Just because we look like other animals, and we share many of their features such as having skeletons, muscles, skin, hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs, limbs and brains, the infallible word of God in the infallible Bible makes it clear that man was God’s special creation. The secularists conveniently invent things in other sciences to provide the millions of years their religion of evolution requires, whereas the infallible Bible makes it abundantly clear that the Earth is only 6000 years old.</p>
<p>So you see, secularists simply cannot be trusted. They are fallible, base, and believe they are merely molecules and animals. They deliberately deny the revealed truth of God, Jesus and the Bible, all of which in their worldview are entirely fallible. But they are not without hope: They simply need to open their minds to God, ask his forgiveness and they will be saved. And I will do my utmost to lead them to the light through the ministry of Answers in Genesis.</p>
<p>Keep praying, and keep sending in the money (not because I desire financial gain, but because you will be supporting me in my God-given mission to defend His Word).</p>
<p>Ken</p>
<p> (With thanks to researchers at Answers to Genesis who have helped me repeat what I have said many times before).</p>When is an atheist not an atheist?tag:atheistnexus.org,2014-09-11:2182797:BlogPost:24731542014-09-11T09:38:41.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Well according to Jason Lisle, an Answers in Genesis stooge, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in gods, but does really believe in gods. Or at least, of all the gods that they could choose to believe in, they all believe in just one god. Strangely enough, it's exactly the god he believes in.</p>
<p>Anyhow, there is something that appears recently on the Answers in Genesis website. I'm not going to bother directing you to it because this is what it really says.</p>
<p><b>God Doesn’t…</b></p>
<p>Well according to Jason Lisle, an Answers in Genesis stooge, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in gods, but does really believe in gods. Or at least, of all the gods that they could choose to believe in, they all believe in just one god. Strangely enough, it's exactly the god he believes in.</p>
<p>Anyhow, there is something that appears recently on the Answers in Genesis website. I'm not going to bother directing you to it because this is what it really says.</p>
<p><b>God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists</b></p>
<p>People who do not believe in gods are really people who do believe in gods. The Bible says that one god exists, therefore one god exists. God revealed himself to all, except everybody he did reveal himself to other than in the Bible. God’s existence is so obvious nobody has no excuse for not seeing him, smelling him, tasting him, being physically touched by him or having a conversation with him. Atheists say they don’t believe in God, but knowledge of god is contained in the muscle located in the thorax that pumps blood around the body. If atheists have direct knowledge contained in this muscle, why do they not believe in God (or any other god)?</p>
<p>People don’t believe in God because God is so nice, he is angry at them for not believing in him. You should be afraid of such a loving god. So although atheists find no evidence for the existence of gods, they are strongly motivated by this total lack of evidence to reject this angry god. They suppress the truth because they are wicked, even though being truthful is supposed to be a good thing. The atheist is schizophrenic because they don’t believe in gods but do believe in gods even though they don’t believe in gods.</p>
<p>Therefore, because we have told atheists a load of absolute nonsense, we do not need to provide further evidence because atheists should believe in total nonsense because Jason Lisle does. His mission is to show atheists that although they don’t believe in gods, they do believe in gods because it better to believe in total nonsense than it to not believe in something because if it is total nonsense.</p>
<p><b>Exposing the Inconsistency</b></p>
<p>Because an atheist does believe in gods that he doesn’t believe in, atheists are being inconsistent. An imaginary atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents goes home and kisses his imaginary wife and hugs his imaginary children as if they were not chemical accidents, but real people.</p>
<p>Consider the atheist who is outraged at watching a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. But he shouldn’t be angry because he finds no evidence for gods. He shouldn’t get upset at soda for reacting with vinegar because this is exactly the same as taking away a human life. Only Christians have value as people, therefore only Christians have the right to be angry at murderers.</p>
<p>Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally. But the human concept of morality which results from being socially interactive, intelligent beings is not the same as the morality of a supernatural being that nobody can prove even exists. Morals should be imposed by fictional gods because otherwise human beings will invent their own moral codes.</p>
<p><b>Logical Inconsistency</b></p>
<p>If it snows, it must be cold. This is because it only snows when it’s cold, therefore, logically, if it’s snowing, it must be cold. This is because logic is a reflection of a fictional supernatural being that doesn’t appear to exist. The god who is God is an immaterial omnipresent, unchanging abstract entity therefore the fact that it snows only when it’s cold is also an immaterial, universal, invariant abstract entity. We know God is real because you can read about him in a book.</p>
<p>However, because atheists do not believe in fictional supernatural beings, for them snow can fall on even very hot days. Most atheists believe in things that are real, but because logic is abstract, they cannot believe that logic is real. You cannot put logic in the refrigerator with real things like milk and eggs. Even though atheists can think, they cannot be logical because logic can’t be taken out of the fridge.</p>
<p>Yet, having said all that, no one is denying that atheists cannot think logically. The point is, because they do not believe in illogical things, they cannot believe in logic. This is being inconsistent because although the existence of gods is illogical, only people who belivee in them are being logical. By being logical, atheists prove they are illogical, because it is illogical to disbelieve in illogical things. </p>
<p>Because atheists do not believe in things that are not proven to be real, they cannot believe in logic, immaterial things that are universal and unchanging with time and can only be believed in human beings. The best proof of the existence of gods is the fact that atheists don’t believe that a piano falling on their head from a great height will hurt them, because only people who believe in God can believe such things. This pathetic argument is known as transcendental argument for God, or tafG for short. Despite the fact it is pathetic tafG is devastating and conclusive argument, apparently.</p>
<p><b>Proof Versus Persuasion</b></p>
<p>Though tafG is apparently deductively sound, some atheists will find it unconvincing. Atheists are generally unable to grasp that such spurious arguments are not at all spurious, and even if they do find such nonsense makes sense, they may still remain unconvinced. It must be remembered that people can be persuaded by an argument if some sort of proof can be provided, even though proof and persuasion are mutually exclusive. Atheists are strongly motivated by lack of proof (or, indeed, nonsense like tafG) to not believe in gods, even though one particular god will be angry with them.</p>
<p>Even though atheists see themselves as nothing more than atoms interacting with other atoms, their denial of the existence of gods will be an emotional one rather than a logical one. A disobedient child who is about to be whacked by his real and solid father cannot wish his father to no longer exist. In the same way, atheists who are about to be whacked by their unreal, non-solid father cannot simply wish this god away.</p>
<p>It is not the job of real people to argue that people who are not real are really actually real. But people who are not real can use the arguments of real people to persuade other real people to believe that they do really exist. It’s just simply that they don’t bother.</p>Creationists call Queen Elizabeth II a liartag:atheistnexus.org,2014-05-13:2182797:BlogPost:24223882014-05-13T09:43:46.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>I'll be upfront about this: I am dedicated Republican. In the UK, this means that I am opposed to the monarchy, and am a member of a campaign to have of Head of State democratically elected rather than chosen by the lottery of birth. As a Republican, I am often critical of the monarchy, and on occasion, of the Queen herself.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, even I would balk at calling her a bare-faced liar. Prominent creationists, among them Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, and Stephen Green of…</p>
<p>I'll be upfront about this: I am dedicated Republican. In the UK, this means that I am opposed to the monarchy, and am a member of a campaign to have of Head of State democratically elected rather than chosen by the lottery of birth. As a Republican, I am often critical of the monarchy, and on occasion, of the Queen herself.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, even I would balk at calling her a bare-faced liar. Prominent creationists, among them Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, and Stephen Green of Christian Voice UK, have no such qualms.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As Head of State of an officially non-secular state, the Queen is also the Head of the Church of England (the actual title is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Church of England officially accepts that evolution is true, and by extension, the Queen also must officially accept that evolution is true. Thus, when creationists claim that evolution is a lie, not only are they calling the CofE a bunch of liars, they are saying that the Queen herself accepts and encourages the lie.</p>
<p></p>
<p>(Note: I have no idea whether the Queen even knows what evolution actually means, nor whether she personally supports the idea. But as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, in her official capacity, she certainly endorses it).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Ironically, Stephen Green is pro-monarchy, and a loyal supporter of the Queen. Yep, the same queen who he is calling a liar. That, Mr Green, is a treasonous accusation. The Tower awaits.</p>What am I going to believe? This is a question Ken 'The Lie' Ham posed a week or so back. This is my response1. Observed and observable reality. That is, anything that can be seen, touched, communica…tag:atheistnexus.org,2014-02-13:2182797:BlogPost:23804422014-02-13T10:19:16.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>What am I going to believe? This is a question Ken 'The Lie' Ham posed a week or so back. This is my response<br></br><br></br>1. Observed and observable reality. That is, anything that can be seen, touched, communicated with or observed.<br></br><br></br>2. Anything that denies or defies observable reality can almost certainly be rejected.<br></br><br></br>3. The Lord of the Rings, the Narnia Chronicles, the Bible and the Discworld series are all fantasy books. They share common themes e.g. gods, magic, miracles…</p>
<p>What am I going to believe? This is a question Ken 'The Lie' Ham posed a week or so back. This is my response<br/><br/>1. Observed and observable reality. That is, anything that can be seen, touched, communicated with or observed.<br/><br/>2. Anything that denies or defies observable reality can almost certainly be rejected.<br/><br/>3. The Lord of the Rings, the Narnia Chronicles, the Bible and the Discworld series are all fantasy books. They share common themes e.g. gods, magic, miracles and mythologies that defy or deny observable reality.<br/><br/>4. Science isn't perfect, but it's far removed from the imperfection of religion. Scientists are, by and large, honest people who sometimes make mistakes. These mistakes can be rectified.<br/><br/>5. Science and religion are not two faces of the same coin. They are not even the same currency.<br/><br/>6. Scientists who are religious, or religious people who claim to be scientists, should really consider why they are scientists or why they are religious.</p>Don't leave a space for Oscar on the mantlepiece, Erictag:atheistnexus.org,2013-10-01:2182797:BlogPost:23091342013-10-01T10:53:02.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>The latest piece of nonsense from Ken Ham attacks American Atheists for attacking a 3-D film about creation.</p>
<p><em>As we have come to expect from most atheists, they are already against a message before they even see and hear it! That’s because they have decided that no matter what evidence is before them and no matter what someone argues, if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless!</em></p>
<p><b>Well, yes. But only because anybody who reads the Bible and think it reflects…</b></p>
<p>The latest piece of nonsense from Ken Ham attacks American Atheists for attacking a 3-D film about creation.</p>
<p><em>As we have come to expect from most atheists, they are already against a message before they even see and hear it! That’s because they have decided that no matter what evidence is before them and no matter what someone argues, if it has its basis in the Bible, it’s wrong regardless!</em></p>
<p><b>Well, yes. But only because anybody who reads the Bible and think it reflects reality is an idiot.</b></p>
<p><em>We saw an example of this again last week. Good friend of AiG Eric Hovind and his ministry are producing a <a href="http://genesismovie.com/" target="_blank">3D movie depicting Genesis</a>. The Christian Post reported on this movie and quoted the president of the American Atheists as he commented on the movie’s successful fundraising campaign:</em></p>
<p><b>People should be free to make movies on any subject. That’s why for every ‘Godfather’, there’s a ‘Freddie Got Fingered’; for every ‘Avatar’, there’s a new Underworld movie. Good and bad films are released all the time. If Eric Hovind wants to waste money on a 3-D movie instead of doing supposed Christian things like caring for the sick, the hungry, or the impoverished, that just makes him less of a true Christian. At the same time, people are perfectly entitled to watch ‘Grown Ups’ rather than ‘Lincoln’ if they so choose. Or watch both (variety being the spice of life).</b></p>
<p><em>Secular museums and documentaries (and other films) spend large sums of money to make flashy movies and exhibits—but that’s OK as long as they teach atheism, evolution, and millions of years as fact! But, if Christians use the latest technology to produce first-class museum exhibits and a startling movie to teach people the truth of God’s Word, well, that’s not OK for atheists because they have already decided Christianity is false.</em></p>
<p><b>I can’t actually think of a recent movie that teaches atheism, evolution or ‘millions of years’ (whatever that may mean in movie terms - imagine spending millions of years sitting in the same cinema seat). There was the recent Will Smith movie ‘After Earth’, but that seemed to misrepresent the concept of evolution as much as Ken Ham does. Or there is the forthcoming Thor movie, but when the main character is a Norse God, that hardly promotes atheism. On the other hand, we have the forthcoming Noah movie, which will probably not be promoted as a fantasy movie, despite the fact that the concept is pure fantasy.</b></p>
<p><em>What I’ve noticed about many atheists and other secularists is that they often cry tolerance, but they are <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/21/angry-atheists-display-intolerance-christianity" target="_blank">often the most intolerant people around</a>! Really, they are tolerant of all opinions as long as they agree with their own.</em></p>
<p><b>This would be a strange comment, coming as it does somebody who almost daily attacks Christians for not tolerating his own version of Christianity, and who constantly lies about atheism, evolution and science on his various websites. But this is what we expect from Ken Ham.</b></p>
<p>It’s thrilling to see how God raises up different people like Eric to be engaged in the massive spiritual battle before us today. We pray God will use this 3D movie in a big way to reach people for Christ.</p>
<p><b>Personally, I can’t wait for the next Avengers movie.How will they top the Hulk's "Puny God" line?<br/></b></p>The Sheer Insanity of Ken Hamtag:atheistnexus.org,2013-09-12:2182797:BlogPost:23008572013-09-12T10:21:47.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<div class="innerWrap"></div>
<div class="_1dsp"><div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
<p><a class="actorPhoto lfloat" href="https://www.facebook.com/david.godfrey.1042"><img alt="" class="_s0 profilePic _rw img" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn2/s48x48/1076583_100006396304752_411132466_q.jpg"></img></a></p>
<div class="actorDescription actorName"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.godfrey.1042?hc_location=stream">David Godfrey</a></div>
<div><div class="text_exposed_root" id="id_5231953e144df3a79553221">Amazing! Ken Ham chooses to celebrate an event where just about every living thing was condemned to drown,…</div>
</div>
<div class="innerWrap"></div>
<div class="_1dsp"><div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
<p><a class="actorPhoto lfloat" href="https://www.facebook.com/david.godfrey.1042"><img class="_s0 profilePic _rw img" src="https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn2/s48x48/1076583_100006396304752_411132466_q.jpg" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="actorDescription actorName"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.godfrey.1042?hc_location=stream">David Godfrey</a></div>
<div><div id="id_5231953e144df3a79553221" class="text_exposed_root">Amazing! Ken Ham chooses to celebrate an event where just about every living thing was condemned to drown, yet criticizes modern society for accepting homosexuality and abortion. Think on that for a moment. With a few exceptions, every living thing on Earth was unilaterally killed by the slow process of water filling their lungs. That’s every animal, every child, every adult, every new-born baby. Yet Ken Ham celebrates this as a good thing.<br/> <br/> On the other hand, Ham rages against homosexuality as an abomination. In his twisted world, consensual love between adults of the same sex is as an abomination in comparison to every living thing slowly and deliberately suffering death as the air in their lungs is replaced by water.<br/> <br/> He also rails against abortion, claiming millions of children are killed. I’m no expert, but I believe abortion clinics are run by well-meaning, well trained medical people who undertake what is probably an unpleasant procedure a<span class="text_exposed_hide">...</span><span class="text_exposed_hide"><span class="text_exposed_link"><a>See More</a></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="clearfix shareRedesignContainer"><a class="shareMediaLink shareRedesignMedia _8o lfloat" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/time-to-rebuild-noahs-ark" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img class="shareMediaPhoto img" src="https://fbstatic-a.akamaihd.net/rsrc.php/v2/y4/r/-PAXP-deijE.gif" alt=""/></a><div class="_42ef"><div class="attachmentText fsm fwn fcg"><div class="uiAttachmentTitle"><strong>It’s Time to Rebuild Noah’s Ark! Why? - Answers in Genesis</strong></div>
<span class="caption"><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org">www.answersingenesis.org</a></span><br />
<div class="mts uiAttachmentDesc translationEligibleUserAttachmentMessage">Ken explains how building an Ark will remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>The myth of Christian persecutiontag:atheistnexus.org,2013-07-15:2182797:BlogPost:22698762013-07-15T14:55:08.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/07/13/where-is-the-usa-heading/">http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/07/13/where-is-the-usa-heading/</a></p>
<p>Oh dear, Mr Ham. Are you absolutely unable to write anything that vaguely resembles things like truth and reality?</p>
<p>You write: “Of course, we can’t always rely on reporting to be accurate from newspapers for stories like this, so there’s always the possibility that we don’t know all…</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/07/13/where-is-the-usa-heading/">http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/07/13/where-is-the-usa-heading/</a></p>
<p>Oh dear, Mr Ham. Are you absolutely unable to write anything that vaguely resembles things like truth and reality?</p>
<p>You write: “Of course, we can’t always rely on reporting to be accurate from newspapers for stories like this, so there’s always the possibility that we don’t know all the facts.” (The story revolves around an American street preacher arrested in an English town for making an anti-homosexual hate ‘sermon’).</p>
<p>So what Ham does is assume the worst-case scenario, which in his mind means that Christians in Britain are being persecuted. This couldn’t be any further from the truth, but you don’t like the t-word, do you Ken?</p>
<p>So, as we don’t know the truth, let me also make a few speculations:</p>
<p>1. The lady who reported Mr Miano was a Christian, ashamed of being associated with a bigot like him. Or, she has a family member who is a homosexual, and was personally insulted by Mr Mianio’s nastiness.</p>
<p>2. Mr Miano was released without charge because he is a Christian. The person who agreed to free him was also a Christian.</p>
<p>The truth is, yes, Britain is a secular country. But not in the way Mr Ham would define it. We are secular in the sense that people are free to practice whatever religion they wish, or no religion at all. Yes, that’s going to come as a complete shock to Ham, but in this country, not even atheists are persecuted. Neither are Christians. Despite what Mr Ham infers, Christians* are not in danger of being arrested just because they are Christians. And because in many ways we are quite a modern, open-minded country, we do not persecute homosexuals either. Again, this will come as a nasty surprise to Mr Ham, but we are quite at ease with homosexuality in this country, unlike in third-world countries that he wishes us and his adopted country to be.</p>
<p>This is why Mr Miano was arrested. He clearly was using offensive language in a public area. Personally, I would rather he hadn’t been arrested, but at the same time I would rather homophobic tapeworm like Mr Miano would just shut their bile-filled mouths.</p>
<p>Anyway, Ken, if there’ s anything we can do to advance America’s secular culture by ensuring that it strives for true secularisation, we’d be happy to provide the guiding light.</p>
<p>*There is, of course, one sector of society who dread the words “oi, Christian, you’re nicked.” I refer, of course, to those habitual criminals who are named Christian.</p>What is an atheist?tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-07-09:2182797:BlogPost:22671472013-07-09T10:52:14.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>I for one am sick and tired of the stupid, dishonest and just plain wrong things that are said about atheists by people such as Ken 'The Lie' Ham and Ray 'Banana' Comfort. So here is my personal view of what an atheist is. Feel free to disagree with any of this, it is a personal statement and you may have your own reasons for being an atheist.</p>
<p><b>What is an atheist?</b></p>
<p>An atheist is somebody who does not believe that gods exist. We have looked at the evidence for gods, found…</p>
<p>I for one am sick and tired of the stupid, dishonest and just plain wrong things that are said about atheists by people such as Ken 'The Lie' Ham and Ray 'Banana' Comfort. So here is my personal view of what an atheist is. Feel free to disagree with any of this, it is a personal statement and you may have your own reasons for being an atheist.</p>
<p><b>What is an atheist?</b></p>
<p>An atheist is somebody who does not believe that gods exist. We have looked at the evidence for gods, found there isn’t any, so have rejected the notion that any exist. We have considered the evidence for unicorns, fairies and other fabled creatures, found there isn’t any, and have rejected the notion that they exist too.</p>
<p><b>Atheists are angry with god that Christians believe in</b></p>
<p>We don’t believe in that god, so how can we be angry with him/her/it/them? The last time I had a tooth removed, the Tooth Fairy didn’t recompense me. Was I angry with the Tooth Fairy? No, because I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.</p>
<p><b>Atheists are blinded or deceived or controlled by the Devil</b></p>
<p>We don’t believe in gods, so why should we believe in devils?</p>
<p><b>Atheists are all evolutionists.</b></p>
<p>Atheists are prepared to accept the truth of evolution, because the evidence does not conflict with our faith in an ancient book of fantasy stories. A great many atheists probably only have a limited understanding of what biological evolution is, much less engage with it on a day-to-day basis.</p>
<p><b>Because we don’t believe in gods, atheists live meaningless, pointless lives</b></p>
<p>Atheist recognise that without evidence to the contrary, there is probably no afterlife. Therefore, the fact that we only have one chance at living gives our life meaning and purpose. Our interactions with others – particularly our families and friends – add to the richness of our existence. For members of AiG who ardently believe that when the die, they are going to go to a much better place, surely life is meaningless and purposeless in comparison.</p>
<p><b>Atheists believe that we are nothing but a jumble of directionless bits</b></p>
<p>In which case, the music of Mozart is just a jumble of musical notes. The Bible and the Koran are just strings of meaningless symbols.</p>
<p><b>Atheists believe we are nothing but animals</b></p>
<p>Atheists don’t just believe this, we know that it is true. We are living creatures. We share many characteristics with other living things. The main difference between us and other animals is that we have evolved powerful brains that have allowed us to develop in so many, less restricted ways. But, at a biological level, yes, we are just animals.</p>
<p><b>Atheism is a religion</b></p>
<p>Atheists don’t believe in the supernatural, so how can it be regarded as a religion? We regularly fail to congregate to not worship deities we don’t believe in. That is a very strange sort of religion.</p>
<p><b>Atheists can’t live a moral life</b></p>
<p>The likesof Ken Ham say that because we don’t get our moral guidance from a mythical supernatural being, atheists cannot be moral. Yet a great many atheists lead perfectly fine, highly moral and ethical lives, especially compared to members of certain religious groups. For example, note how prisons are stuffed to the brim with Christians.</p>
<p><b>Atheists want to see Christianity destroyed</b></p>
<p>Most atheists couldn’t care less about destroying Christianity. Most atheists get on well with most Christians. However, organisations like Aig that refuse to accept reality, and wish to conscript everybody in the world to their viewpoint, make us angry. We would prefer people to make up their own minds about religion. Besides, Christianity is in decline without our intervention. We need only sit back and watch it disappear naturally.</p>
<p><b>Atheists are aggressive towards religion</b></p>
<p>Atheists get angry with religious people who wish to browbeat people into believing what they believe. We are angry with people who lie about other people, falsely representing them as fraudulent and immoral because they don’t believe in supernatural beings. Ask yourself this: How often do you see crowds of atheists protesting outside churches? How many atheists threaten non-atheists with eternal damnation if they reject atheism? Leave us alone, and we’ll be happy to leave you alone.</p>
<p><b>Atheists want to brainwash children into being atheists</b></p>
<p>The fact is, all children are born atheists. They remain atheists until somebody tells them that they must believe in God, otherwise when they die they’ll roast for all eternity (of course, in many parts of the world, they’ll be taught to believe in the prevailing religion of that area). We don’t need to brainwash children into becoming atheists, we just need to let them grow up and adopt their own beliefs. Schools do not teach children how to be atheists, but there are plenty of schools that teach children how to be religious.</p>
<p><b>Atheists are all abortionists</b></p>
<p>All atheists will have their own opinion on abortion. Personally, I’m not keen on it, but I respect that women should be able to make an informed choice. I also believe that most women do not take this decision lightly. One interesting point: If the Christian god did exist, he/she/it/they would be responsible for all children that die in the womb or at birth of natural causes. This makes the Christian god responsible for a phenomenal number of abortions throughout history. Why is abortion by choice worse than abortion through God’s choice?</p>The Lie - Thoughts on the Foreword and Introductiontag:atheistnexus.org,2013-03-07:2182797:BlogPost:21789492013-03-07T16:27:04.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>As promised, part one of my review of 'The Lie' by Ken Ham.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The book sets out its stall straight away. Evolution, perhaps in league with gravity, is responsible for all the evil in the world. Evil includes homosexuality, so if you are a homosexual, no matter how nice you treat people, no matter how much you give to charity, no matter even if you are a Christian; You are EVIL! But at least you can blame it on evolution.</p>
<p>Remember those halcyon days when there was no…</p>
<p>As promised, part one of my review of 'The Lie' by Ken Ham.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The book sets out its stall straight away. Evolution, perhaps in league with gravity, is responsible for all the evil in the world. Evil includes homosexuality, so if you are a homosexual, no matter how nice you treat people, no matter how much you give to charity, no matter even if you are a Christian; You are EVIL! But at least you can blame it on evolution.</p>
<p>Remember those halcyon days when there was no crime, no sin, everything was perfect, because everybody was a church-going Christian? Those days are long gone, because secular schools teach children that evolution is true. Evolution is based on the real world, i.e. the bits of the world that we can experience through our senses. The real world says the world God inhabits is not the real world. So if you are mugged on your way home tonight, if your local bank is robbed, or your neighbours have same-gender sex tonight, it’s all the fault of evolution. And maybe gravity.</p>
<p>In his introduction, Ken Ham also makes it clear where his worldview comes from. His parents brought him up to believe that the Bible is the word of God. There is no mention of what methods were used to drill this message into young Kenneth, so I cannot even begin to speculate about little Ken’s indoctrination, but it is pretty clear that by the time he was old enough to go to university, he was certain in his own mind that God and the Bible are infallible. Quite why he decided to study science at university when he openly admits that everything he studied he believed to be lies, again only Kenny knows.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So far, so rubbish. Next installment next week.</p>
<p></p>Bodie Hodge is a raving lunatic (and his God is even worse)tag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-22:2182797:BlogPost:21686422013-02-22T16:36:14.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Even by the standards of Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis mob, Bodie Hodge is a mad man.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Read this <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/02/22/misunderstanding-god">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/02/22/misunderstanding-god</a> and you'll understand why I say this. Quite apart from his usual pathetic attack on atheists (we're just chemicals, you know), it at least reveals the nature of the God he (or they) have invented Here are some of the…</p>
<p>Even by the standards of Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis mob, Bodie Hodge is a mad man.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Read this <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/02/22/misunderstanding-god">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/02/22/misunderstanding-god</a> and you'll understand why I say this. Quite apart from his usual pathetic attack on atheists (we're just chemicals, you know), it at least reveals the nature of the God he (or they) have invented Here are some of the things you can learn about that God:</p>
<p></p>
<p>God allowed us to sin. The only reason God would allow this is so that he can punish sinners, which makes God a sadist.</p>
<p>God supports murder when it is committed by people who don’t believe in him.</p>
<p>God is responsible for setting gun laws. The only problem is, we don’t know what his gun laws consist of, because nobody in the Bible used a gun.</p>
<p>God doesn’t want any more angels, thank you very much. He has enough, and can’t make any more.</p>
<p>The Newton murders happened because children in school aren’t allowed to be taught that they shouldn’t be jealous of their neighbour’s donkey.</p>
<p>God really only likes Christians.</p>
<p>Anything bad that happens, blame poor old Adam and Eve. Omnipotent God abdicates all responsibility.</p>
<p>God doesn’t like it when people ask questions of him.</p>
<p>Even though he is never arbitrary, God is arbitrary when it comes to answering prayers.</p>
<p>Little babies commit sinful acts.</p>
<p>No matter how hard you try, you cannot be good.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If I were Ken Ham, I'd seriously think about whether he should continue employing Mr Hodge. He really does them no favours when he spouts this garbage. But then, maybe he's just a perfect reflection of Ken himself. On second thoughts, Ken, keep him on the staff. People need to be shown what a waste of human resources AiG is.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>Mr Ken Ham, the Science Guytag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-15:2182797:BlogPost:21641452013-02-15T09:30:29.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Mr Ken Ha, BSc (possibly Hons) accuses Professor Lawrence Krauss of knowing nothing about science. “This is yet another example of a university professor who just does not fully understand science…”</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
<li>1984 First Prize Award, Gravity Research Foundation</li>
<li>1986 Presidential Young Investigator Award</li>
<li>1997 Glover Award for Distinction in Physics Achievement and Physics Education, Dickenson College, PA.</li>
<li>2000Award for Public Understanding of Science…</li>
</ul>
<p>Mr Ken Ha, BSc (possibly Hons) accuses Professor Lawrence Krauss of knowing nothing about science. “This is yet another example of a university professor who just does not fully understand science…”</p>
<ul>
<li> </li>
<li>1984 First Prize Award, Gravity Research Foundation</li>
<li>1986 Presidential Young Investigator Award</li>
<li>1997 Glover Award for Distinction in Physics Achievement and Physics Education, Dickenson College, PA.</li>
<li>2000Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Citation: For global impact as a science communicator and the ability to maintain an active science career while writing several books about physics for the general public.</li>
<li>2001 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize, American Physical Society. Citation: For outstanding contributions to the understanding of the early universe, and extraordinary achievement in communicating the essence of physical science to the general public.</li>
<li>2001 Andrew R. Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics. Citation: To Professor Lawrence Krauss for excellence in the interpretation of physics to the public through numerous newspaper and magazine articles, books, lectures, and television productions. Krauss is especially commended for his communication of sound scientific literacy through timely opinion pieces and books, and for his efforts to address incorrect popular interpretations of science disseminated in the mass media.</li>
<li>2002 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for Atom, An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth and Beyond</li>
<li>2003 Humanism Award, Free Inquirers of Northeast Ohio</li>
<li>2004 Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers.</li>
<li>2004 Northern Ohio Live Award of Achievement: Science and Technology</li>
<li>2005 Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society, Citation: For major contributions in defending science in the schools through his efforts in combating the opponents of teaching evolution, and for continuing to enhance the public understanding of contemporary physics</li>
<li>2009 Center for Inquiry World Congress Award for Scholarship in the Public Interest.</li>
<li>2009 Friend of Darwin Award, National Center for Science Education</li>
<li>2009 Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada</li>
<li>2012 National Science Board 2012 Public Service Award</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Other Honors (since 1977)</b></p>
<ul>
<li>1977 Senate Graduating Medal, Carleton University</li>
<li>1977-1981 N.R.C. Postgraduate Scholarship</li>
<li>1982-1985 Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows</li>
<li>1982-83 N.S.E.R.C.Fellowship</li>
<li>1988 Junior Faculty Fellowship,Yale Unversity</li>
<li>1988 Senior Faculty Fellowship, Yale University</li>
<li>1988 Nesbitt Lecturer, Carleton University</li>
<li>1989 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award</li>
<li>1990 Named Sigma-Xi National Lecturer (1991-92)</li>
<li>1990 Named to "International Leaders in Achievement"</li>
<li>1991 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award</li>
<li>1993 Named to Ambrose Swasey Chair in Physics</li>
<li>1995 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award</li>
<li>1996 Innaugural Distinguish Scientist Lecturer for Young People, Ohio Aerospace Institute</li>
<li>1996 Innaugural Distinguished Physics Lecturer, University of Minnesota</li>
<li>1996 Ohio Achievement Award Selection, Northern Ohio Live Magazine</li>
<li>1997 Hays Lecturer, Oberlin College</li>
<li>1997 Great Poets League of Cleveland Honoree 1997</li>
<li>1998 Cleveland Magazine, 50 Most Interesting People of the Year Award</li>
<li>1997-8 University School-Seelbach Visiting Chair</li>
<li>1998 American Physical Society Centennial Lecturer</li>
<li>1998 Henry Steel Lecturer, Mid America Orthopedic Assn.</li>
<li>1998 Commencement Speaker, Hiram College</li>
<li>1998 13th Annual Frank G. and Jean M. Chesley Lectureship, Carleton College</li>
<li>1998 Herzfeld Lecturer, Catholic University</li>
<li>1999 Fellow, American Physical Society</li>
<li>1999- Board of Directors, Physics Entrepeneurship Program.</li>
<li>1999 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award</li>
<li>1999 Moti Lal Rustgi Memorial Lecturer, SUNY Buffalo</li>
<li>1999 Hendrik de Waard Foundation Lecturer, Groningen, Netherlands</li>
<li>2000 Maurer Memorial Lecturer, University of Arkansas</li>
<li>2000 Vanden Miles Lecturer, Wayne State University</li>
<li>2000 Kallen Lecturer, University of Lund, Sweden.</li>
<li>2000 Benedum Lecturer, University of West Virginia</li>
<li>2000 Great Minds Lecturer, Illinois Math and Science Academy, Aurora IL</li>
<li>2000 Soloist, Holst, The Planets, with The Cleveland Orchestra</li>
<li>2001 Rochester Lecturer, University of Durham, UK</li>
<li>2001 Isaac Asimov Memorial Panelist, American Museum of Natural History, NY</li>
<li>2001 Rorschach Lecturer, Rice University</li>
<li>2001 Shell Lecturer, National Assoc. of Science Teachers</li>
<li>2001 Invited Witness, U.S. House Committee on Science, Session on the Future of Space Exploration</li>
<li>2001 Malstrom Lecturer, Hamline University, Minnesota</li>
<li>2001 Morgan Lecturer, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth Texas</li>
<li>2001 Timothy J. OLeary Distinguished Scientist Lecturer, Gonzaga University</li>
<li>2001 Presidential Inauguration Keynote Speaker Clark University</li>
<li>2001 Campbell Lecturer, Society of Pediatric Urology</li>
<li>2001 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Centenary Lecturer, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory</li>
<li>2001 Fermi Centennial Lecturer, Fermilab</li>
<li>2001 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science</li>
<li>2002 Knight Fellow, Western Reserve Academy</li>
<li>2002 Friedman Lecturer, Penn State University</li>
<li>2002 Milton Lecturer, Syracuse University</li>
<li>2002 Chancellor’s Lecturer, Vanderbilt University</li>
<li>2002 Fellow, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal</li>
<li>2003 Waynick Lecturer, Penn State University</li>
<li>2003 Donald Ross Hamilton Lecturer, Princeton University</li>
<li>2003 Woods Lecturer, Westminster College, PA</li>
<li>2003 New Frontiers in Information Sciences Distinguished Lecturer, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome NY</li>
<li>2003 Commencement Speaker, Carleton University</li>
<li>2003 Five Colleges Lecturer, U Mass. Amherst</li>
<li>2003 William Mahoney Lecturer, U. Mass Amherst</li>
<li>2003 Presidential Lecturer, Clark University</li>
<li>2004 Joe Barnhart Lecturer, Coastal Bend College, TX</li>
<li>2004 Constance Wilson Distinguished Lecturer, Berry College, GA</li>
<li>2004 Maurice and Yetta Glicksman Commencement Lecturer, Brown University</li>
<li>2004 Likover Lecturer, American Civil Liberties Union.</li>
<li>2004 Samuel Newton Taylor Lecturer, Goucher College</li>
<li>2005 Hooker Professor and Lecturer, McMaster University</li>
<li>2005 Rudin Distinguished Scholar Lecturer, Marymount College</li>
<li>2005 First Annual Mel Oakes Distinguished Undergraduate Lecturer, UT. Austin</li>
<li>2005 World Year of Physics Lecturer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory</li>
<li>2005 Benson Lecturer, Miami University</li>
<li>2005 IBM Yorktown Heights Visions Lecturer</li>
<li>2005 NASA Huntsville, World Year of Physics Lecturer</li>
<li>2005 Sigma Pi Sigma Lecturer, Wright State University</li>
<li>2005 Crump Lecturer, St. Andrews School</li>
<li>2005 Presidential Lecturer, University of Tulsa</li>
<li>2005 IBM Lecturer, Wittenberg University</li>
<li>2005 World Year of Physics Lecturer, Severance Hall</li>
<li>2006 Michigan State Science Teacher’s Distinguished Lecturer</li>
<li>2007-8 Phi Beta Kappa National Visiting Scholar</li>
<li>2006- Board of Sponsors, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists</li>
<li>2006 Terry Lectureship, Science and Religion, Yale University</li>
<li>2007 Distinguished Scientist Lecture, Brookhaven National Laboratory</li>
<li>2007 Concordia University Distinguished Scientist Lecturer</li>
<li>2007 Gravity Research Foundation Prize Award</li>
<li>2007 Michelson Centenary Lecturer, US Naval Academy.</li>
<li>2007 Inaugural Beyond Institute Lecturer, Arizona State University</li>
<li>2008 Centennial Lecturer, University of Arkansas</li>
<li>2008 Bradley Lecturer, American Enterprise Institute</li>
<li>2008 2008 Michigan State University Distinguished Lecturer</li>
<li>2009 National Lecturer, Australian National Science Week</li>
<li>2010 Todd Lecturer, Butler University</li>
<li>2010 Woods Lecturer, Norwich University.</li>
<li>2010 Smith Lecturer, Davidson College</li>
<li>2010 Distinguished University Lecturer, U. Alberta, Edmonton</li>
<li>2010- Distinguished Visiting Professor, Australian National University</li>
<li>2011 James and Jean Davis Prestige Visiting Fellow, Otaga University</li>
<li>2011 Miegunyah Distinguished Visiting Fellowship, University of Melbourne</li>
<li>2012 Irving K. Barber Lecture, University of British Columbia</li>
<li>2012 The Littleton-Franklin Lecture, Auburn University</li>
</ul>
<p>The above is taken from Lawrence Krauss’ online cv.</p>
<p>Good call, Mr Ham. What does Professor Krauss know about science, eh?</p>Creation science experimentstag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-14:2182797:BlogPost:21636322013-02-14T12:20:18.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Creationists demand that evolutionary science be subject to the most rigorous scientific tests. I would like to offer the following challenges to creation scientists. Conduct these experiments according to the scientific method i.e every step and observation/result must be recorded and must be repeatable:</p>
<p>1. Construct a room that is entirely enclosed so that it is perfectly dark. Without using any tools or instruments, create light.</p>
<p>2. Take a region of empty space. Using only…</p>
<p>Creationists demand that evolutionary science be subject to the most rigorous scientific tests. I would like to offer the following challenges to creation scientists. Conduct these experiments according to the scientific method i.e every step and observation/result must be recorded and must be repeatable:</p>
<p>1. Construct a room that is entirely enclosed so that it is perfectly dark. Without using any tools or instruments, create light.</p>
<p>2. Take a region of empty space. Using only the materials that are to hand, construct and populate with millions of named plants and animals. The results must be available for full use within three days.</p>
<p>3. Take a pile of dust. From this dust, create a living human male.</p>
<p>4. Find a human male's rib bone. From this rib bone, spontaneously construct a living human female.</p>
<p>Supplementary experiments:</p>
<p>5. Find a snake. Have a rational conversation with it.</p>
<p>6. Allow yourself to be swallowed by a large sea dwelling animal. Spend three full days living in its stomach.</p>Evolution is Deadtag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-12:2182797:BlogPost:21618992013-02-12T15:15:54.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>On this, Darwin Day, evolution as a theory, as a science, as a subject for debate and discussion, is dead. And Stephen Green of Christian Voice is the one who killed it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I quote "What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why…</p>
<p>On this, Darwin Day, evolution as a theory, as a science, as a subject for debate and discussion, is dead. And Stephen Green of Christian Voice is the one who killed it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I quote "What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?"</p>
<p>You see, ever since Darwin and Wallace, the whole concept of evolution has teetered on the question why the tufted duck has a tuft on its head. No matter how many fossils you dig up, identify and date; no matter what you observe in nature; no matter what area of evolution you study; no matter what the experts are able to explain and provide evidence for. None of these things matter. Unless they can provide the definitive answer to the question that has eluded science ever since man started to ask questions, it is all for nought. It seems nobody can explain why the tufted duck has a tuft on its head, therefore evolution must be false.</p>
<p>All hail Stephen Green. All hail the tufted duck - the duck that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists.</p>Sitting Targettag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-07:2182797:BlogPost:21592022013-02-07T15:59:04.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Ken 'The Lie' Ham has written again, displaying the soft underbelly of his ignorance when it comes to atheists or atheism. Why does this man such an easy target of himself?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I have included salient extracts from his post.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Actually, I would suggest that atheist churches have been operating across the Western nations for a long time. By and large in the USA, public schools and secular universities have really become churches of humanism with many of the teachers…</p>
<p>Ken 'The Lie' Ham has written again, displaying the soft underbelly of his ignorance when it comes to atheists or atheism. Why does this man such an easy target of himself?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I have included salient extracts from his post.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Actually, I would suggest that atheist churches have been operating across the Western nations for a long time. By and large in the USA, public schools and secular universities have really become churches of humanism with many of the teachers and professors being the high priests of this church. In the UK, government-funded schools are not any better. In both nations, schools teach naturalism as fact, using the belief in evolution and millions of years as a supposed “scientific” justification for their atheistic (naturalistic) anti-God religion that they have imposed on generations of students. They legislate to protect their anti-God religion and allow no questions asked or any critical evaluation. It is sheer dogma!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Actually, the origin of the word church was an assembly of citizens. It’s a word (like, for example, Easter) that has been hi-jacked by Christians, and is more commonly regarded nowadays as an assembly of Christians. It’s entirely possible that ‘atheist church’ is meant ironically, perhaps even sarcastically, but a humour by-pass victim like Ken Ham just doesn’t get it.</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>Schools are places where children go to learn about basic things like maths, reading and writing as well as other interesting things such as history, geography and science. Children should not go to school to be indoctrinated into a particular religion, especially when schools are funded by people who are not believers in that particular religion. Similarly, they should be sent to school to be taught that one particular political party is the one they should vote for, or that they should support one particular football team, or drive one particular brand of car. As well as learning facts, children go to school to learn how to critically analyse information. Ken, of course, disagrees with this ideal. He feels that children should be taught that an invisible phantom power created everything in the universe, and that if they do not believe in this invisible phantom power, their spirit will be roasted for ever and ever. They should be made to read a book that explains everything, even though it explains nothing, and they should be made to believe every word is true, no matter how stupid those words are. And they should not, ever, ask questions about this book.</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>As for anti-god religion, that is what’s known as an oxymoron. As oxymoron is quite a big word, Ken might need to refer to a dictionary.</b></p>
<p><br/> This latest news item details the formation of an atheist church that meets on Sunday. Why would they do this? Well, it’s really a part of an effort to fill the void in their lives because underneath it all they know God is the Creator and they have a conscience written on their hearts:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>What void? Why does Ken believe that I need to believe in his invisible phantom power in order to enjoy life? Does the line “…it’s really a part of an effort to fill the void in their lives because underneath it all they know God is the Creator and they have a conscience written on their hearts” make any sense at all? If I knew God was the Creator, I wouldn’t be an atheist. Again, Ken, when you write this sort of rubbish, have a dictionary to hand and refer to it when you don’t understand words such atheist.</b><br/> <br/> <br/> The article begins this way: “An ‘atheist church’ in North London is proving a big hit with non-believers. Does it feel a bit like a new religion?”<br/> <br/> The reporter then states, “Not many sermons include the message that we are all going to die and there is no afterlife.”<br/> <br/> This comment really sums it up for me. Atheists believe when they die they will cease to exist—which means they won’t know they were ever conscious beings—so what does that mean about life? It means it is totally meaningless and purposeless! But wait—the atheists are so aggressive in our world today to stop the Christian message. They are so active to protect their meaningless religion in educational institutions. Why do they even bother? If life is ultimately a meaningless existence for a short time—why do their efforts matter at all?<br/> <br/> Their actions merely reinforce the fact that there is a spiritual battle going on and that they know in their hearts there is a God.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>I’ve tried to explain before, Ken, but here goes again: Atheists do not believe that gods exist. We have considered all the evidence, found none, so do not believe in gods. Get that? We. Do NOT. Believe. In. Gods. I hope so, please do not make me repeat it again.</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>Apart from the fact that our bodies decay, we have absolutely no knowledge of what happens after death. The only way we can find out is if we die. But until then, I am verifiably alive, and while I have family and friends and an interest in continuing to live, my life has meaning. Ken on the other hand, believes that the afterlife is going to be far better for him than this Earthly one, so let me ask a question: How is his life not meaningless and purposeless if the afterlife is going to be infinitely better?</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>Aggressive? Aggressive how? We do not want to stop the Christian message. Some of it is actually quite worthy. If people want to be Christians, and they’re doing no harm to anybody else, well then, we really couldn’t care less.</b></p>
<p> <br/> But the Sunday Assembly is no ordinary church service.<br/> <br/> Why would they meet on Sunday? I believe it is a way of shaking their fist at God—to make a mockery of the Christian celebration of Christ’s resurrection.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Or perhaps Sunday was a good day for people being able to attend, being a weekend day off work and all. We do not shake our fists at gods because…well, we do not believe in gods. Now look, you’ve made me repeat that assertion yet again. Are you being deliberately stupid?</b><br/> <br/> It reminds me of the time a few years ago when a group of atheists visited the Creation Museum and then met outside the gates to mock communion (in reality, to mock the death and resurrection of Christ). One of them was served Kentucky bourbon and a cheese cracker!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Maybe more people would be interested in going to church is Kentucky bourbon and cheese crackers were offered. Not me, though.</b><br/> <br/> The atheist church doesn’t sing Christian hymns, of course, but as the article states, “Instead of hymns, the non-faithful get to their feet to sing along to Stevie Wonder and Queen songs.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>All hail the almighty Freddy.</b><br/> <br/> <br/> They obviously crave the truth of God they are suppressing as illustrated in this statement:<br/> <br/> Another attendee, Gintare Karalyte, says: “I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That’s what people are craving in the world.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Craving to be part of something = supressing the truth of God. Really not sure how that works, but then I don’t possess the seriously twisted mind of Ken Ham.</b><br/> <br/> And what is happening in England is also happening in America:<br/> <br/> The number of people declaring themselves to be of “no religion” in England and Wales has increased by more than six million since 2001 to 14.1 million, according to the latest census. That makes England and Wales two of the most unreligious nations in the Western world.<br/> <br/> <b>Yay, good for us. It can be done.</b><br/> <br/> And writer Alain De Botton has unveiled a Manifesto for Atheists, listing 10 virtues – or as the press has already dubbed them “commandments” – for the faithless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>And very good they are too. But as they don’t include anything about buttering up God’s ego, Ken doesn’t like them.</b><br/> <br/> <br/> There is a concern among some non-believers that atheism is developing into a religion in its own right, with its own code of ethics and self-appointed high priests.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>I’m completely unaware of such concern. Are you sure you’re not making things up, Ken (as your reputation would suggest you might)? Our own code of ethics? How dare we.<br/></b> <br/> As we’ve been saying for a long time, two-thirds of young people in America are leaving the church by college age—this has already happened in England. The article states that people in this church “decided to abandon their Christian faith.” And the next paragraph really sums it up—and should be a warning for the church in America, for this is the reality of what has happened in England and the reality of where the church in America is heading:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Ken uses the word reality twice in one sentence. So he’s not entirely unaware of the concept of reality.</b><br/> <br/> The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul’s Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.<br/> <br/> <br/> But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.<br/> <br/> “They have got to start from somewhere,” he says.</p>
<p><b>Ah well, as the song says, it’s not where you start, it’s where you finish.</b><br/> <br/> Hopeless! He has no clue that it’s really because of the church and its rampant compromise on God’s Word that these people are on a journey away from Christianity! God’s people need to repent of compromising His Word and start preaching the Word with authority and countering the false arguments of our day that have brainwashed generations into not trusting the Bible, and only then will we even begin to reach these who have been lost from the church.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Christians who are in touch with at least some reality are not proper Christians.</b><br/> <br/> If you haven’t done so, I encourage you to read the book Already Gone, which discusses this youth exodus in detail and the remedies for a church that is losing the coming generations. You can read it online or purchase the book from our online store.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Shameless plug. Ken clearly needs the money. He has a big boat to build</b></p>Atheist Poetrytag:atheistnexus.org,2013-02-04:2182797:BlogPost:21574572013-02-04T13:58:52.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Purely for pleasure, can anybody quote any atheist poetry?</p>
<p>Purely for pleasure, can anybody quote any atheist poetry?</p>Don't thank God, thank sciencetag:atheistnexus.org,2013-01-31:2182797:BlogPost:21550792013-01-31T11:24:15.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>One of the creationist movement’s most pathetic attempts to discredit science has been the invention of two distinct types of ‘science’. These are,</p>
<p><b>“1. Operational Science:</b> An explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists.</p>
<p><b>2. Historical Science:</b> An explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.</p>
<p>“The key…</p>
<p>One of the creationist movement’s most pathetic attempts to discredit science has been the invention of two distinct types of ‘science’. These are,</p>
<p><b>“1. Operational Science:</b> An explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists.</p>
<p><b>2. Historical Science:</b> An explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.</p>
<p>“The key is observation, since only the present can be observed. We live in the present and that is what we observe. The past can not be observed since we do not live in the past we do not observe the past. The past can only be studied by observing in the present. Even distant star light is observed only in the present even if we do see the stars as they looked in the past.</p>
<p>This causes a problem because to study the past requires making some assumptions about the past even studying distant stars requires making assumptions about the history and structure of the universe. This makes studying the past more likely to be affected by philosophical assumptions.</p>
<p>The result is that since the study of origins is by definition a historical science the study of origins is highly influenced by philosophical assumptions. If those philosophical assumptions are wrong then so are the conclusions.”</p>
<p>Quite apart from the fact, I think it is fair to say, that the vast majority of scientists do not accept the validity of these definitions, the creationists have set themselves up with several problems. I refer you to a recent blog by PZ Myers which deals with at least one of these problems far more eloquently than I ever could. Instead I’d like to focus on just one</p>
<p>Even if these definitions are acceptable, the fact remains that operational science tells us far more about the universe than creationist science ever could. Remember, creationist science takes an ancient book of myths and fantasy stories, and tries to construct ‘science’ around it. Real science*, on the other hand, gives us:</p>
<p><i>Medicine</i> – Cures for a raft of diseases, or protection against them, including polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria; an understanding of diseases, how they work, how they spread and how they can be prevented; understanding of how the human body works, so that faulty organs can be replaced, or we can be advised how to look after our bodies so that we can live longer, more fuller lives. Edward Jenner, he who discovered immunology, has "saved more lives than the work of any other man", and that most certainly includes Jesus Christ himself.</p>
<p><i>Technology</i> – Timekeeping devices; the telescope; the microscope; the internet; air travel; energy production.</p>
<p><i>Mathematics</i> – Calculus; algebra; trigonometry. Understanding mathematics underpins many scientific discoveries.</p>
<p><i>Navigation</i> – Cartography; the sextant; GPS.</p>
<p><i>Physics</i> – A description of gravity; the three laws of motion; particle, nuclear and atomic physics; relativity; quantum physics.</p>
<p><i>Astronomy and space</i> – The death of the Ptolemaic system; discovery of the planets of the solar system; discovery that most visible stars are actually clusters of millions of other stars; discovery of celestial bodies found by non-visible means (infra-red, ultraviolet, radio astronomies); cosmology and the big bang.</p>
<p><i>Miscellaneous</i> – archaeology; geology and plate tectonics; psychiatry; psychology; printing; the industrial revolution.</p>
<p>These examples barely scratch the surface. The last 200-250 years of the Enlightenment have seen the world change completely, as scientists have made amazing discoveries, and continue to do so. Religion has often hindered such progress, but has also, in some cases, assisted, or has been impotent. The Bible (I can’t really speak for other holy books as I am unfamiliar with them) contains nothing that can progress humanity or its place in the universe. Science has revealed it for what it is – a book of myth, superstition and fantasy. It may have literary value, but as a guide to our future, it is hopeless.</p>
<p>One final word on Operational vs Historical Science. All science is historical according to the creationist definition.</p>
<p>*I have deliberately not included anything to do with biology or evolution. That is a whole other argument.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p> </p>The Lazarus Bugtag:atheistnexus.org,2013-01-15:2182797:BlogPost:21443752013-01-15T15:56:03.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/dna-bacteria">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/dna-bacteria</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>"Some scientists have dismissed the finding and believe the Lazarus bacteria are contamination from modern bacteria. But the scientists who discovered the bacteria defend the rigorous procedures used to avoid contamination. They claim the old age is valid if the bacteria had longer generation times, different mutation rates, and/or similar…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/dna-bacteria">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/dna-bacteria</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>"Some scientists have dismissed the finding and believe the Lazarus bacteria are contamination from modern bacteria. But the scientists who discovered the bacteria defend the rigorous procedures used to avoid contamination. They claim the old age is valid if the bacteria had longer generation times, different mutation rates, and/or similar selection pressures compared to modern bacteria. Of course these “rescuing devices” are only conjectures to make the data fit their worldview."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Whilst this is not a "Rescuing Device"? "However, the discovery of Lazarus bacteria is not shocking or surprising when we base our expectations on the Bible accounts. For instance, Noah’s Flood likely deposited the salt beds that were home to the bacteria. If the Lazarus bacteria are only about 4,500 years old (the approximate number of years that have passed since the worldwide flood), their DNA is more likely to be intact and similar to modern bacteria."</p>
<p></p>
<p>"If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates)."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Isn't this another version of the old 'if man is descended from gorillas, why are there still gorillas' question? It's just an attempt to deliberately misrepresent evolution. It's pathetic and childish.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The main question is, if Dr Georgia Purdom no longer believes in the scientific method, shouldn't she be handing back her PhD?</p>Why are they called 'Answers in Genesistag:atheistnexus.org,2013-01-08:2182797:BlogPost:21392532013-01-08T14:59:21.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p><span class="font-size-2">The AiG website is full of stuff like this <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/did-it-rain">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/did-it-rain</a></span></p>
<h2><span class="font-size-2">It's all speculation, mostly fantastical (watery canopy surrounding the Earth? WTF?) . The article even says "We must recognize that such models are speculative, especially if they are based primarily on what is not stated, rather than what…</span></h2>
<p><span class="font-size-2">The AiG website is full of stuff like this <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/did-it-rain">http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/did-it-rain</a></span></p>
<h2><span class="font-size-2">It's all speculation, mostly fantastical (watery canopy surrounding the Earth? WTF?) . The article even says "We must recognize that such models are speculative, especially if they are based primarily on what is not stated, rather than what is."</span></h2>
<p><span class="font-size-2">So if the answers aren't actually in Genesis - or anywhere else in the Bible - why do they call their organization Answers in Genesis? Aren't they trading under false pretenses? <strong><br/></strong></span></p>Atheists Assault on Christianity?tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-14:2182797:BlogPost:21222842012-12-14T10:09:42.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Christians around the world, but particularly in America, are in grave danger, according to Ken Ham of Answers (Nowhere) in Genesis. How so? Are churches being ransacked and razed to the ground? Are there mass bible burnings? Are Christians being rounded up, tattooed with a fish on their foreheads, and herded into vast labour camps?</p>
<p>Well, no. But atheists in America have launched a blistering, non-lethal poster citing the Jesus story as a myth, just like the Santa Claus myth. So…</p>
<p>Christians around the world, but particularly in America, are in grave danger, according to Ken Ham of Answers (Nowhere) in Genesis. How so? Are churches being ransacked and razed to the ground? Are there mass bible burnings? Are Christians being rounded up, tattooed with a fish on their foreheads, and herded into vast labour camps?</p>
<p>Well, no. But atheists in America have launched a blistering, non-lethal poster citing the Jesus story as a myth, just like the Santa Claus myth. So vicious is this poster, so far there have been no fatalities, no serious injuries and zero minor injuries.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/12/13/atheists-continue-their-assault-on-christianity/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29">http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/12/13/atheists-continue-their-assault-on-christianity/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29</a></p>Atheism - An Unashamed Force For Goodtag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-12:2182797:BlogPost:21213232012-12-12T12:00:00.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p><a href="http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/2012dec12cos/">http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/2012dec12cos/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Stephen Green of Christian Voice asks, in essence, what atheists have done to improve the lot of ordinary people. He cites people like William Wilberforce, Thomas Barnado and Lord Shaftsbury as examples of Christian philanthropists, people who have had a major impact on changing the world. I take nothing away from these people or their achievements,…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/2012dec12cos/">http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/2012dec12cos/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Stephen Green of Christian Voice asks, in essence, what atheists have done to improve the lot of ordinary people. He cites people like William Wilberforce, Thomas Barnado and Lord Shaftsbury as examples of Christian philanthropists, people who have had a major impact on changing the world. I take nothing away from these people or their achievements, nor do I deny that their faith drove them to do good things. But who in the world of atheism can match these people?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'll give you a few names to chew on, Stephen:</p>
<p></p>
<p>George Soros</p>
<p>Andrew Carnegie</p>
<p>Bill and Melinda Gates</p>
<p>Bob Geldof</p>
<p>Warren Buffett</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm sure this list just scratches the surface.</p>
<p></p>
<p>P.S. In previous correspondence, I tried to point out to Mr Green that the Quakers had a great deal to do with the campaign to end the slave trade. He rejected this fact, I think because the Society of Friends also has a long history of not opposing gay marriage.</p>So who are all these Christians?tag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-11:2182797:BlogPost:21202612012-12-11T11:24:22.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>"The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 fell 13 percentage points to 59% (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72% (37.3 million) in 2001.</p>
<p>The number of those who said they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15% (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25% (14.1 million) in 2011."</p>
<p></p>
<p>I wouldn't for a second suggest that in order to be a Christian you need to attend church on a regular basis. Even though the pews are mainly empty…</p>
<p>"The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 fell 13 percentage points to 59% (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72% (37.3 million) in 2001.</p>
<p>The number of those who said they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15% (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25% (14.1 million) in 2011."</p>
<p></p>
<p>I wouldn't for a second suggest that in order to be a Christian you need to attend church on a regular basis. Even though the pews are mainly empty every Sunday, a fact readily acknowledged by the CofE, this cannot be taken as proof positive that this country has to some extent abandoned Christianity.</p>
<p><br/>However, I do believe that in order to claim that you are a Christian, you should know something about what exactly it is you claim to believe in. How many of this 33 million Christians can answer the following questions:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1. Name the outgoing Bishop of Canterbury and his replacement?</p>
<p>2. Name the four gospels and describe briefly what each tells us about the life of Jesus?</p>
<p>3. Who was Saint Paul and why is he important in the story of Christianity?</p>
<p>4. What are the major differences between Catholicism and the various categories of Protestantism?</p>
<p>5. Quote one verse from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My point is, although these millions of people put down in the census that they are Christians, how many truly are? I've no doubt the vast majority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs know far more about their declared faiths than those who ticked 'Christian' simply because it was the first option on the form. The figures are far from representative of the true picture, and I believe (yes, even atheists believe in things) that the number of non-believers in this country is far higher than the census suggests.</p>Not Welcome Heretag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-06:2182797:BlogPost:21173602012-12-06T14:10:21.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Ken 'The Lie' Ham of Answers (Nowhere) in Genesis has commented on the UK Government's notice to free schools that teaching creationism as science is a no-no. Naturally, Mr Lie is concerned that children should be taught to be stupid and ignorant, and therefore more open to religious mind-control, rather than taught about the real world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Compare and contrast:</p>
<p></p>
<p>"A theory requires an initial hypothesis that can be confirmed or denied through the application of…</p>
<p>Ken 'The Lie' Ham of Answers (Nowhere) in Genesis has commented on the UK Government's notice to free schools that teaching creationism as science is a no-no. Naturally, Mr Lie is concerned that children should be taught to be stupid and ignorant, and therefore more open to religious mind-control, rather than taught about the real world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Compare and contrast:</p>
<p></p>
<p>"A theory requires an initial hypothesis that can be confirmed or denied through the application of observational science. Scientists are certainly able to collect facts about the evidence before them and study such things as mutations and DNA—and even notice similarities and differences—but they can never test unrepeatable events in the past. Even when scientists are able to observe natural selection, they are only observing what happens with genetic information that already exists." (Steve Ham, Answers in Genesis).</p>
<p></p>
<p>"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact." (American Association for the Advancement of Science).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Who do trust? A group of people who only accept known facts if they fit, or can be distorted to fit with their ancient book of myths and fantasy stories, and who actively seeks to manipulate the minds of children. Or do you go along with an organization that actually has the word 'Advancement' in it's name, and whose definition of theory is accepted by the vast majority of scientists?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm not sure if Steve Ham is still in the UK. His visit has been met with a storm of apathy. Hopefully his visit will be a short one, and he won't have had much opportunity to infect our children with creationist canker. It's the children of America I feel sorry for.</p>When you know you're losing, cheattag:atheistnexus.org,2012-12-06:2182797:BlogPost:21170692012-12-06T10:10:59.000ZDave Godfreyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/DaveGodfrey440
<p>Stephen Green is the notorious leader of a shabby bunch of Christian flakes called Christian Voice. For a while I was able to comment on his blog, but then he started to get fed up of me taking umbrage at his nasty, bigoted stance on homosexuals and I find myself blocked.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The fact is, like others of his kind (i.e. evangelical Christians, see also Answers in Genesis), Mr Green hates being called out for the horrible little Hitler that he is. Deep down he knows what he is,…</p>
<p>Stephen Green is the notorious leader of a shabby bunch of Christian flakes called Christian Voice. For a while I was able to comment on his blog, but then he started to get fed up of me taking umbrage at his nasty, bigoted stance on homosexuals and I find myself blocked.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The fact is, like others of his kind (i.e. evangelical Christians, see also Answers in Genesis), Mr Green hates being called out for the horrible little Hitler that he is. Deep down he knows what he is, therefore he will use every trick in the book to besmirch those who criticize and argue against him. He'll lie, obfuscate, answer questions with questions, quote dodgy statistics and insult the intelligence of people rather than engage in genuine debate. Note the following recent exchange:</p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><strong>barriejohn</strong></p>
<p>4 December 2012 at 11:13 In what way could homosexuality possibly be described as an “evil”? Because a two-thousand-year-old book of fairy tales says so?</p>
<p><b><i><u>Stephen</u></i></b></p>
<p>4 December 2012 at 15:58</p>
<p>I guess it is inevitable that atheists prefer myth to cold hard fact.</p>
<p>Social and medical science have clearly revealed the pathological nature of homosexual desires, practices and lifestyles, despite the special pleading from the, er, fairies.</p>
<p>Read ‘The Sexual Dead-End’ for the facts. Or just google ‘homosexuality practices diseases’.</p>
<p><b><i>Kat Cooper</i></b></p>
<p>5 December 2012 at 13:34</p>
<p>Do you truly think it’s helpful, Stephen, to refer to homosexuals as “fairies”?</p>
<p><b><i><u>Stephen</u></i></b></p>
<p>5 December 2012 at 15:09</p>
<p>I think you will find it it was Barrie John who referred to the ‘fairies’ first.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Note how he twists barriejohn's reference to fairy tales so that it somehow becomes name calling of homosexuals. I've no doubt that barriejohn has tried to get this fixed, but is now blocked. Barriejohn has caught himself a weasel, but the weasel has reverted to type. Stephen Green has lost the argument; therefore he must do what all losers and cowards do - cheat.</p>
<p><br/>If you don't know Stephen Green or Christian Voice, have a look at his site. It's so full of bile and hate I reckon most Christians shudder at what is being said in their name. </p>